0 Votes
Let's Dispel The "Science Is Settled" Myth.
The prevailing attitude amongst the AGW disciples is that there is no serious dissent amongst scientists regarding the AGW theory.
One claim is that there are no “peer reviewed” papers. Ignoring for the moment that the “Peer Review” process is horribly gamed and tainted, I am here to completely decimate the claim that there are no “Peer Reviewed” papers that dispute or disprove the AGW theory.
450 Peer Reviewed Papers That Support AGW Skepticism
Now, let’s move on to the bogus claim that “All Scientists Are On Board With The AGW Theory”..
So, can we please not further the myth that the science is settled and that ALL scientists agree?
Michale…..
This article was edited after publication by the author on 08 Dec 2009.
View changes.
Print Friendly
Write an Article
Bogus! All of it! by GreatWhiteDork
Clearly, those papers were all written by Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, or Rush Limabugh at the behest of the Bush controlled Oil companies with the blood of innocent little puppies.
There are 450,000,000,000 peer reviewed papers that provide absolute incotrovertible proof beyond any reasonable or even sane discussion. So those 450 that obviously slipped past the process (which is ABOVE ALL REPROACH!) only represent 1/1,000,000,000 th of the papers and are therefore considered “lunatic fringe”. These papers are clearly the rantings of people who want our world to be destroyed just like the documentary “The Day After Tomorrow” which shows us exactly what will happen very, very soon.
And every one of those scientists is a crank and paid for by the oil companies.
Why do you hate the world, Michale32086? Why?
Still beating strawmen by scottb
I see you’re still flogging your lies about climate science. You’ve broken out two more of the standard, and long-debunked lies this time.
We know there’s dissent, and I’ve agreed that there’s dissent every time the question has come up. The question is the scale and credibility of that dissent. This is the first time you’ve even remotely tried to offer an indication of it.
Too bad it’s a failure.
First, a paper that identifies something its author sees as a flaw in another paper that supports the AGW hypothesis is not sufficient to qualify as supporting your idiotic denialism. It’s not even enough to judge that scientists to be skeptical of the AGW hypothesis. But, since it’s the best you can find, like the CRU emails, you pick anything you can find that’s even a little bit suggestive and spin it as hard as you can. Still lying.
For example, the second item on your list of 450 isn’t even a paper. It’s the author’s response to a criticism of the first item in the list. A quick review of the first dozen or so papers listed show none of them actually dissenting from the AGW hypothesis, at best they question specific models or specific data sets.
But, let’s grant you your 450 “dissenting” papers. Is that significant? How many papers are there supporting it? There are about 1.3 million peer-reviewed scientific articles published each year (across all subjects). If only a tenth of a percent of them address climate change issues (and I doubt it’s that small), then your dissenters are easily outnumbered by at least twenty to one.
As for the OISM petition, that’s been repeatedly shown to be a giant fraud, yet you denialists still keep humping it like poorly trained dogs. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
Destroying Alamist Lies by Anonymous
Scottb, nothing he stated has been debunked. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, from the site,
“Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count.”
The replies to comments are included not so they can be counted but for defense against alarmists who dishonestly list just the criticisms without the defense via reply from the authors of the papers.
The question is how many papers exist supporting AGW explicitly! Because while there are thousands of papers that discuss climate, only a small amount explicitly endorse AGW theory.
The petition has never been shown to be a fraud. The criticisms raised against it were shown to be without merit and propaganda, all the scientists who signed it are real and listed at the website,
http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php